AMRISH KUMAR AGGARWAL, M/S. MAHALAXMI PRODUCTS, UTTAR PRADESH Vs. M/S. VENUS HOME APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all, there are four Miscellaneous Petitions as summarized below: - (i) Miscellaneous Petition No. 225/2009: Miscellaneous Petition filed by the appellant to allow this petition and refusing the respondent from frivolous documentary evidence for taking on record. (ii) Miscellaneous Petition No. 226/2009: Miscellaneous Petition filed by the appellants to set aside the impugned order dated 28/06/2001 and remanding back the matter to the Trade Marks Registry and to allow both the appellant and the respondent to file their evidence and thereafter to decide the opposition proceedings. (iii) Miscellaneous Petition No. 39/2012: This Miscellaneous Petition filed by the appellant to reject the evidence filed by the respondent on 18/10/2011 - 326 documents and to dispose the appeal by remanding back the matter to the Trade Marks Registry. (iv) Miscellaneous Petition No. 77/2012: Miscellaneous Petition filed by the respondent to take on record the documents under section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(2.) THE fact of the case is as under: - The matter is an appeal against the order of the Registrar rejecting the application for registration and allowing the opposition. In the appeal, the documents relied on by the respondent were not before us. The appellants counsel objected to the respondents filing those documents now for the reason that there were documents more in number than that were filed before the Registrar.

(3.) THE evidence filed along with the counter statement / affidavit in support of opposition were not filed by the respondent along with the counter statement in the appeal stage. The Board had therefore requested the Trade Marks Registry several times to send the lower court records. The Trade Marks Registry replied back stating that the documents were not traceable and would send the same as and when it is traced. The matter was therefore adjourned for want of documents.